Desalination. Desalination refers to any of a wide range of technologies that remove salt from water. Desalination plants have the potential to negatively impact the marine environment through the introduction of brine waste effluent and other substances to MBNMS waters. Additionally, the construction of desalination facilities and associated pipelines often causes alteration of the seabed. Concern over current and potential future expansion of the use of desalination within MBNMS has led the staff to develop a regional approach to address desalination, aimed at reducing impacts to marine resources in MBNMS through consideration of facility siting issues, on-site mitigation measures, modeling and monitoring, and outreach and information exchange.
Desalination. California has strong goals for both addressing the state’s water needs and protecting the state’s coastal and ocean resources. The state’s current recommendation is that desalination should be considered a future water source where it is economically and environmentally appropriate, and as an element of a balanced water supply portfolio that also includes conservation and water recycling to the maximum extent practicable.15 There is an immediate role for the OPC to play regarding desalination as facilities are both presently operational and under consideration. In some coastal communities, desalination is considered a local and reliable component of the water supply portfolio. Desalination currently In some cases, desalination has a relatively high cost and energy usage compared with other water sources, but as new technology comes on line and other sources increase in cost, it is anticipated that desalination will become more cost competitive and efficient. The state’s current recommendation is that desalination should be considered a future water source where it is economically and environmentally appropriate, and as an element of a balanced water supply portfolio that also includes conservation and water recycling to the maximum extent practicable.16 Although some current desalination technologies may have minimal adverse impact to the environment, the impacts of other conventional or emerging desalination technologies may include adverse effects on marine life. These can be due to seawater intakes that allow significant entrainment and impingement of marine organisms, brine discharges, and high energy consumption, resulting that may result in significant greenhouse gas emissions. There is a need to evaluate desalination technologies and identify methods for minimizing damage to marine life and the environment. The OPC and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) have taken previous actions to address entrainment and impingement caused by use of once-through cooling (OTC) technology at many coastal power plants.17 As a result of the SWRCB’s 2010 policy, many of these plants are planning to re-power without OTC over the next decade. The Department of Water Resources (DWR) is coordinating a multiagency effort to update the California Water Plan, and the 2013 update will be the first time coastal and marine elements will be incorporated. The Water Plan will address integrated water management, including water supply, water quality, environmental st...
Desalination. The projects included in the desalination cost analysis are mostly in Southern California, except for a brackish water project in Antioch in the San Francisco–Bay Delta. The number of projects in this category is much smaller than in the other two categories. The analysis shows that brackish water desalination is significantly less costly than ocean water desalination (Figure B1). Numerous factors play a role in this outcome, such as less energy intensity and lower salt concentration, which lowers operating costs. Desalination project costs include project design, labor, infrastructure and equipment, land acquisition if not already owned, permitting, and O&M. The most significant contributor to the cost of desalination projects is the O&M cost. Projects in other categories had O&M costs not exceeding 10 percent of the total project cost, whereas for some desalination projects O&M costs were more than half of total costs. Most of the O&M cost is for electricity use. The cost of brackish desalination varies between $658/af and $937/af, with a median cost of $784/af. Ocean desalination varies between $2,240/af and $2,647/af, with a median cost of $2,538/af. Summary of Results Alternative water supply projects vary considerably across different project types. Figure B1 presents the total cost range for all projects and their median values, and Figure B2 shows the project costs and capacity on a logarithmic scale, highlighting the correlation between project capacity and the unit cost of the water source. The results show strong economies of scale for these water supply projects, with cost decreasing exponentially as the capacity of the project increases. Stormwater capture has by far the greatest cost range. The cost of obtaining one acre-foot of water through stormwater retention could be as little as $178 or well over $10,000/af, with an overall median cost of $2,370 (the median cost is $6,843 for small projects, and $465 for large projects). Recycling projects have a range of $360– $9,954/af, with a median value of $1,471/af. The cost of desalination varies between $658/af and $2,647/af with a median of $922/af, with the lower-cost projects involving brackish water rather than ocean desalination. FIGURE B1 Alternative water supply projects exhibit a wide range of unit costs SOURCE: See “Data Sources” section and Table B1. NOTE: Points represent the projects included in each category. The diamonds represents the median cost. Small stormwater projects yield l...
Desalination. The principal concern for our analysis of desalination costs is the small number of projects included in the dataset. However, the results are in agreement with other recent studies, and the data demonstrate that ocean desalination is significantly more costly than brackish desalination. Costs of Urban Conservation in Southern California Urban water conservation and efficiency has been another area of focus in Southern California, especially since the 1987–92 drought (see main report and Technical Appendix A). Water agencies have offered financial incentives to customers, and provided public education messaging, using their own resources and state and federal grants.6 In this section, we present the results of two analyses, using data on recent projects and programs. First, we assess the unit cost of conservation through the analysis of individual programs obtained from public sources and the literature. Then, using data from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) conservation programs, we assess the unit costs of the largest programs in recent years. One important caveat is that the estimated unit costs show only the costs to the utilities. The total costs may be higher, because customers typically cover a portion of the costs of replacing fixtures or appliances or changing outdoor landscaping. Our calculations also do not include potential monetary benefits customers receive from these investments (e.g., savings on water and energy bills and landscape maintenance), or other benefits that might accrue to the environment or other parties (e.g., if switching to low-water landscapes reduces chemical- laden runoff into local water bodies). Unit Costs from Individual Programs We obtained unit costs from two programs that received state funding. The first, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power’s Institutional Water Use Efficiency Loan Program, was funded by Proposition 1’s CalConserve program. This project offers zero-interest loans to institutional customers to finance water use efficiency projects with no up-front cost, with the objective of saving 285 af annually at a total cost of $5.7 million. The estimated unit cost is $1,603/af when considering operations and maintenance costs over 20 years. The second program, Municipal Water District of Orange County’s Comprehensive Landscape Water Use Efficiency Runoff Reduction Rebate Program, was funded in 2013 by the SWRCB Clean Beaches Initiative, and was forecast to save 860 af per year at a...
Desalination. Accessed February 3, 2020. Xxxxxx, Xxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx. 2016. The Cost of Alternative Water Supply and Efficiency Options in California. The Pacific Institute. Department of Water Resources. 2018. Water Desalination Grant Program. Accessed November 30, 2019. Department of Water Resources. n.d. CalConserve Water Use Efficiency Loan Program. Accessed February 5, 2020. Xxxxxxxx, Xxxxx, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, and Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx. 2020. “Economic Evaluation of Stormwater Capture and its Multiple Benefits in California.” PLoS ONE. Xxxxx, Xxxxx, Xxxxx Xxxxxxx-Xxx, Xxxxx Xxxx, Xxxxx Xxxxx, Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxx, Xxx Xxxx, Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx-Xxxxxx, Xxxxx Xxxxx, and Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxx. 2019. Water and the Future of the San Xxxxxxx Valley. Public Policy Institute of California. Xxxxxxx, Xxxxxx. 2019. “Montecito District Board Supports Terms for Water Sales Agreement with Santa Xxxxxxx.” Noozhawk. January 28. Xxxxxxxxxxxx, Xxxxxx and Xxxxx Xxxxx. 2017. “How California’s Water Bond Is Being Spent.” PPIC Blog. December 13. Xxxxx, Xxxx X. 2015. “Desalination Today for Water Tomorrow.” Presentation. 4th Annual CalDesal Conference 2015. Los Angeles County Public Works. n.d. Tujunga Spreading Grounds Enhancement Project. Accessed November 30, 2019.
Desalination. The cost for desalinated sea- water from the Carlsbad plant includes the water purchase price from Poseidon and the cost of these aqueduct modifications. The total cost will range from $2,014 to $2,257 per acre-foot, depend- ing on how much water is pur- chased annually. While the impact on individual ratepayers will vary depending upon their local water agency, a typical household of four people can expect to pay approximately $5 to $7 per month more for water by 2016. Underperformance Capital Investments Total Desalination Plant $ 537 Million Total Desalination Pipeline $ 159 Million Financing for Plant and Pipeline1 $ 227 Million Water Authority System Modifications $ 80 Million Total Capital Cost: $1.003 Billion Operations & Maintenance $ 49 Million - $54 Million Annually Desalination Plant and Pipeline Total Unit Cost of Desalinated Seawater $ 2,014/AF for 56,000 AF Desalination Plant, Pipeline, System Modifications, and Interest $ 2,257/AF for 48,000 AF All figures are in 2012 dollars. 1Includes capitalized interest for bond payments during construction, funded reserves (a requirement of financing), closing costs, and fees. Price Increases If Xxxxxxxx fails to satisfy its supply obligations (delivering a minimum of 48,000 acre-feet per year), it will not receive pay- ment for fixed charges from the Water Authority in an amount proportionate to the underperformance. For example, if Xxxxxxxx only delivers 95 percent of its supply obli- gation, it will recover only 95 percent of its annualized fixed charges for that year. Pipeline Ownership Poseidon will design and build the 10- mile pipeline that delivers water from the desalination plant to the Water Authority’s Costs associated with future unantici- pated changes in law or regulations are typically passed on to the purchaser of a commodity. Poseidon will be allowed to increase its price to accommodate changes in law or regulations that generally apply industry-wide to water treatment facilities or wastewater dischargers. These cumula- tive increases are capped at 30 percent over the 30-year term. The agreement also allows for annual price increases for inflation estimated to av- erage 2.5 percent per year. This compares
Desalination. There is an immediate role for the OPC to play regarding desalination as facilities are both presently operational and under consideration. In some coastal communities, desalination is considered a local and reliable component of the water supply portfolio. Desalination currently has a relatively high cost and energy usage compared with other water sources, but as new technology comes on line, it is anticipated that desalination will become more cost competitive and efficient. The state‘s current recommendation is that desalination should be considered a future water source where it is economically and environmentally appropriate, and as an element of a balanced water supply portfolio that also includes conservation and water recycling to the maximum extent practicable.13 Although some current desalination technologies may have minimal adverse impact to the environment, the impacts of other conventional or emerging desalination technologies may include adverse effects on marine life. These can be due to seawater intakes that allow significant entrainment and impingement of marine organisms, brine discharges, and high energy consumption, resulting in significant greenhouse gas emissions. There is a need to evaluate desalination technologies and identify methods for minimizing damage to marine life and the environment. The OPC and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) have taken previous actions to address entrainment and impingement caused by use of once-through cooling (OTC) technology at many coastal power plants.14 As a result of the SWRCB‘s 2010 policy, many of these plants are planning to re-power without OTC over the next decade.
